rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 286,086
- 161,276
- 2,615
One of the most important parts of the constitution is that it protects people from tyranny of the majority. If a majority that doesn't like you ever comes after you, you'll be very happy that the constitution exists.Okay, okay we get it. Every time you disagree with the SC, you throw a tantrum about how they're "making up new things." You want a 7-2 majority so you can have an "easy button." We get it.
You just don't get it, or you don't want to. When I disagree with the SC 50% of the time I agree with the outcome, just not the path to it. I have no issue with Gay Marriage, but I don't see a right to it. Its up to the State Legislatures, and the best the feds could have done via the courts is force States to recognize any valid marriage license from other States, same as now.
I also don't care about Abortion on Demand, I just don't see how the Court can force Alabama to allow it if they don't want to. Since I live in NY abortion would be protected anyway, so don't go into the whole "WHAT ABOUT YOUR WIFE/DAUGHTER" Crap.
When the SC thinks it can make crap up, we get Plessey V Furgeson decisions.
Considering very few states would end up banning abortion, and less and less would not issue gay marriage certificates, you are mixing up the majorities/minorities.
These decisions are an affront to federalism, my second favorite concept after strict constructionism.
So now we have the tyranny of the minority, i.e. 5 of 9 unelected lawyers can basically make shit up, and as long as you agree with it, you are OK with it.
And I keep forgetting that this allows you to ignore the 2nd amendment, you know an explicit right.
The courts need to defend the individual against the tyranny of the states
Kind of like stopping NYC from making me wait 3-6 months and pay $1000 for a handgun permit, right?
Quit whining
You are too cheap to buy a gun anyway